57 réponses à ce sujet

[Gervaise]

My objection to the friendship/rivalry system is that you end up meta gaming in order to ensure you get the result you want with them.   The first time I played DA2 I didn't know precisely how the system would work, so I ended up losing Isabella at the end of Act 2 since I hadn't got her as far as 50% on either scale.  (I found it easier to friend than rival her in subsequent games). I nearly didn't complete my romance with Fenris because initially he was headed for rivalry in Act 1 but then my Hawke became rather less pro mage freedom in Act 2, and of course I was very supportive of his fight against Denarius, and so we swung back towards friendship.   So it took until nearly the end of that Act (and finding the book of Shartan) for me to get to the point where we bedded.   Then it took most of Act 3 (and the Sword of Mercy) before we got far enough along the scale to trigger the reconciliation scene.   I must admit it was with a degree of satisfaction that I finally got Fenris to admit to loving a mage.  

 

However, my biggest problem was with Anders.   Because I was so supportive of his views in Act 1 and kept helping mages with him in tow, I quickly got to full friendship, but thereafter my Hawke started having serious doubts about total mage freedom and in particular Anders' relationship with Justice but there was no adjustment in Anders' view of me.   So in subsequent run throughs I was far less sympathetic from the start, just so I could find out what he would be like when rivalled.   Actually I preferred it at the end when Justice was telling me to clear off and leave Anders alone and he appeared far less in control of his actions than is apparent on the friendship path.  

 

The oddest thing that occurred in another play through concerned Merrill.  I had flirted with her once and then pursued a romance with Fenris (again).   Things remained pretty neutral with Merrill throughout  Act 2 and only hit 50% rivalry (which must be the trigger for the next stage of romance with her) in Act 3.   I had already reconciled with Fenris when Merrill suddenly turned up on my doorstep wanting to take things further.   It was probably a bug but it was possible to sleep with Merrill and have both her and Fenris believe they were in a romance with Hawke.    Very strange.    However, if the romance had not been tied to the friendship/rivalry scale it would never have happened.

 

I preferred the system in DAO.   After all you give gifts in DA2 to improve the friendship/rivalry rating.   At least in DAO you felt more in control of what was happening.   You could even initiate intimacy with certain characters when you chose, rather than waiting to be summoned or having a surprise visitation at your home.   It was even possible to change your mind if you realised the romance was a mistake, something that you couldn't do in DA2.   And you certainly didn't have to be clairvoyant to enjoy a relationship and not so much as look at another character if you wanted a romance to proceed (Sebastian!)

[silverwing5683]

In retrospect, days after playing DA2 for the first time, I think I actually have to side with Fenris. Essentially, his point is valid and you see it if you side with the Templars. You've already seen it in DAO as you cleaned out the circle. And in ferelden, they barely had reason to become blood mages but there it is. They were not pushed into it. The circle in Ferelden, while restrictive was NOTHING like what was going on in DA2.

 

As for rivalry, I think Anders is a prime candidate for it now that I know the game. There is nothing gained by supporting the mages. Nothing gained by supporting him. It only seems to make him more certain of his actions, more justified and a lot less likely to see any logic. Should I play again, he will be rivalry. There is simply no positive side to not being rivals with him.

 

Not sure about Fenris though. Rivalry might give him a bit more balance but his views are justified given his experiences and while not all mages are bad or will turn to blood magic, more than enough of them do which makes his concerns warranted. And that's not even taking into consideration that where he came from the mages ruled IIRC and they did not rule well.

 

I do not like how Meridith runs things but given that I have no power over that, the only way out feels like seeing things from Fenris' point of view though not as extreme.

I would definitely have to agree with this point of view. I think the same thing about those characters as well. I have played the game a few times over and have come to that same conclusion it doesn't seam as though it does any good to make Andres a friend he seams more like a child that needs to be taught that not all of his actions are of good intent. I've gone through and read alot of the different posts and this one is the closest to the way i feel about them as well. I will probably be making Andres a rival as well the next time i play the game.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I would definitely have to agree with this point of view. I think the same thing about those characters as well. I have played the game a few times over and have come to that same conclusion it doesn't seam as though it does any good to make Andres a friend he seams more like a child that needs to be taught that not all of his actions are of good intent. I've gone through and read alot of the different posts and this one is the closest to the way i feel about them as well. I will probably be making Andres a rival as well the next time i play the game.

 

I, too, echo these sentiments.

[Ulnarv]

// edit, oops, post in wrong topic

[Dabrikishaw]

Rivalry has 2 functions.

 

1. An alternate buff to party members for combat.

2. An alternate means to building a relationship with party members.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I have mixed feelings about the Friendship/Rivalry system. I like that you can take your relationships down two quite distinct paths, but I dislike the fact that it encourages you to meta game the heck out of it to get the result you want. By the same token, I found the gift giving in DAO to be an even clumsier way or gaming the system. Overall, I probably liked DA2s approach more, simply because I felt like your relationship to your companions was a more constant feature, and influence on the story. In DAO your companions pretty much just carry on as is until you hit their "point of no return" moment where they either ragequit or attack you.

As for Fenris, I honestly didn't like him much as a character. He looked like an escapee from Final Fantasy, and he came across to me as a bitter, alcoholic with (not unjustified) PTSD. In dialogue all he did was complain endlessly about all mages being horrible because of Danarius, made no distinctions between individuals, judging them almost entirely on the basis of Mage/not-Mage, and was so blinded by his hatred that he could not see that the mages in the circle were every bit as much slaves as he had been, yet still thought it was a good idea; the fact that he could not see the parallels between his own experience and that of the mages made it pretty clear that he was either so filled with vitriol that he refused to see the hypocrisy of his position, or he was simply a fool. In either case, I did not feel inclined to give his views any more weight than I would the rantings of the drunk on the street decrying the end of the world. In the end, he confronted me in the Templar courtyard during the Last Straw and I cut him down without even feeling bad about it. I gave myself +15 approval.

For the record, I also though Anders was a whiney, self-absorbed, pain the ass and I killed him too because killing the Grand Cleric was a jerk move (even if she was a bit useless). I think Varric and Aveline were the only DA2 companions I did like. I thought all the romance options were various kinds of jerks and imbeciles.